Every figure this model derived for IONQ, the value it took, and
the element in the company's own XBRL it was read from — so any of it can be checked
against the filing rather than taken on trust.
As at 2026-06-30.
The figures, and where each came from
This is the part no other screener shows. Each figure below names the XBRL element it
was read from, so it can be checked against the filing itself.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
IONQ on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-163.17
current ratio
15.73
current ratio reported
10.66
deferred revenue growth
335.41
dilution pct
31.62
ev owner earnings
-15.05
ev sales
57.04
fcf margin
-196.32
growth cv
0.66
operating margin
-408.24
owner earnings margin
-378.88
revenue growth
370.64
revenue growth per share
257.56
roic
-65.79
rpo growth
296.57
rule of 40
-37.6
sbc pct revenue
182.56
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about IONQ's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax - CostOfGoodsAndServiceExcludingDepreciationDepletionAndAmortization - dep_amort
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (57.0x) instead
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 2,119M of net cash against a 484M annual burn is 4.4 years
no forward EPS estimate; growth rests on filings only. Analyst consensus is not published in XBRL, so it has to be fetched from a data provider or set by hand in overrides.yaml as `eps_growth_2y`